18 Cited authorities

Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical
520 U.S. 17 (1997) Cited 1,696 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis"
Phillips v. AWH Corp.
415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 5,711 times 164 Legal Analyses
Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyokabushiki Co.
535 U.S. 722 (2002) Cited 810 times 37 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he scope of a patent is not limited to its literal terms but instead embraces all equivalents to the claims described," because "[t]he language in the patent claims may not capture every nuance of the invention or describe with complete precision the range of its novelty."
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) Cited 5,126 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that inventor testimony as to "[t]he subjective intent of the inventor when he used a particular term is of little or no probative weight in determining the scope of a claim (except as documented in the prosecution history)."
Comark Communications v. Harris Corp.
156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 1,183 times
Holding the "doctrine of claim differentiation create a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope"
Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co.
339 U.S. 605 (1950) Cited 1,513 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that “whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was” is an “important factor” weighing in favor of equivalence
U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.
103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 676 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that claim construction is required only "when the meaning or scope of technical terms and words of art is unclear and in dispute and requires resolution to determine" the issue before the court
Freedman Seating Co. v. Am. Seating Co.
420 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 221 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a rotatably mounted stowable seat was not equivalent to the claimed slidably mounted stowable seat because it was a "structural difference" that constituted a "clear, substantial difference or difference in kind"
Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.
550 U.S. 437 (2007) Cited 48 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that Windows "software, uncoupled from a medium" was not a "combinable component" and that "a copy of Windows, not Windows in the abstract, qualifies as a 'component' under § 271(f)."
Brignoli Curley, Inc. v. Curley
499 U.S. 955 (1991) Cited 65 times
Finding that partnership was not indispensable when derivative claim was reclassified as a class action and all the partners were before the court
Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Cited 35,740 times 139 Legal Analyses
Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney
Section 271 - Infringement of patent
35 U.S.C. § 271 Cited 6,039 times 1047 Legal Analyses
Holding that testing is a "use"

Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Freedom Grill, Inc. et al

18 Cited authorities

Holding that "[t]he determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis"

Holding that "[t]he scope of a patent is not limited to its literal terms but instead embraces all equivalents to the claims described," because "[t]he language in the patent claims may not capture every nuance of the invention or describe with complete precision the range of its novelty."

Holding that inventor testimony as to "[t]he subjective intent of the inventor when he used a particular term is of little or no probative weight in determining the scope of a claim (except as documented in the prosecution history)."

Holding the "doctrine of claim differentiation create a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope"

Holding that “whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was” is an “important factor” weighing in favor of equivalence

Holding that claim construction is required only "when the meaning or scope of technical terms and words of art is unclear and in dispute and requires resolution to determine" the issue before the court

Holding that a rotatably mounted stowable seat was not equivalent to the claimed slidably mounted stowable seat because it was a "structural difference" that constituted a "clear, substantial difference or difference in kind"

Holding that Windows "software, uncoupled from a medium" was not a "combinable component" and that "a copy of Windows, not Windows in the abstract, qualifies as a 'component' under § 271(f)."

Finding that partnership was not indispensable when derivative claim was reclassified as a class action and all the partners were before the court

Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

Holding that testing is a "use"